Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
4000-01-U
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 668, 674, 682, and 685
[Docket ID ED-2017-OPE-0112]
RIN 1840-AD28
Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan
Program, Federal Family Education Loan Program, William D.
Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, and Teacher Education
Assistance for College And Higher Education Grant Program
AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to further delay, until
July 1, 2019, the effective date of selected provisions of
the final regulations entitled Student Assistance General
Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Family
Education Loan (FFEL) Program, William D. Ford Federal
Direct Loan Program, and Teacher Education Assistance for
College and Higher Education Grant Program (the final
regulations), published in the Federal Register on November
1, 2016. The Secretary proposes this further delay to
ensure that there is adequate time to conduct negotiated
rulemaking and, as necessary, develop revised regulations.
The provisions for which we propose to further delay the
This document is scheduled to be published in theFederal Register on 10/24/2017 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2017-22850, and on FDsys.gov
2
effective date are listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document. The current effective date of
selected provisions of the final regulations is July 1,
2018, in accordance with the interim final rule (IFR)
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before [INSERT
DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery,
or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by
fax or by email or those submitted after the comment
period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies,
please submit your comments only once. In addition, please
include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
If you are submitting comments electronically, we
strongly encourage you to submit any comments or
attachments in Microsoft Word format. If you must submit a
comment in Portable Document Format (PDF), we strongly
encourage you to convert the PDF to print-to-PDF format or
to use some other commonly used searchable text
format. Please do not submit the PDF in a scanned
format. Using a print-to-PDF format allows the Department
3
to electronically search and copy certain portions of your
submissions.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically.
Information on using Regulations.gov, including
instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting
comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site
under “Help.”
• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery:
The Department strongly encourages commenters to submit
their comments electronically. However, if you mail or
deliver your comments about the notice of proposed
rulemaking, address them to Jean-Didier Gaina, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW., mail stop
6W248, Washington, DC 20202.
Privacy Note: The Department’s policy is to make all
comments received from members of the public available for
public viewing on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be
careful to include in their comments only information that
they wish to make publicly available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Hoblitzell, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW., mail stop
4
6W248, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-7583 or
by email at: [email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments
regarding this notice of proposed rulemaking. We will
consider comments on the further delayed effective date
only and will not consider comments on the wording or
substance of the final regulations. See “ADDRESSES” for
instructions on how to submit comments.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect
all public comments about this notice of proposed
rulemaking by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also
inspect the comments in person in room 6W245, 400 Maryland
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00
p.m. Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each
week, except Federal holidays. If you want to schedule
time to inspect comments, please contact the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing
the Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an
appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual
5
with a disability who needs assistance to review the
comments or other documents in the public -rulemaking
record for this notice of proposed rulemaking. If you want
to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation
or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, the
Department is publishing an IFR delaying until July 1,
2018, the effective date of selected provisions of the
final regulations. The original effective date of the
final regulations published November 1, 2016 (81 FR 75926)
was July 1, 2017. On June 16, 2017, the Department
published in the Federal Register a notification of the
partial delay of effective dates under section 705 of the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 705) (82 FR 27621)
(705 Notice), to delay the effectiveness of certain
provisions of the final regulations until a legal challenge
by the California Association of Private Postsecondary
Schools is resolved. See Complaint and Prayer for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, California Association
of Private Postsecondary Schools v. DeVos, Civil Action No.
1:17-cv-00999 (D.D.C. May 24, 2017). As explained in the
IFR, because the final regulations have been postponed by
the 705 Notice beyond July 1, 2017, they must become
6
effective no earlier than July 1, 2018, to comply with
section 482 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended
(HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1089), also known as the “master calendar
requirement.”
Also on June 16, 2017, the Department announced its
intent to convene a committee to develop proposed
regulations to revise the regulations on borrower defense
to repayment of Federal student loans and other matters.
Given that the first negotiated rulemaking session is
scheduled for November 13-15, 2017, we cannot complete the
negotiated rulemaking process and the development of
revised regulations by November 1, 2018. Under the master
calendar, a regulatory change that has been published in
final form on or before November 1 prior to the start of an
award year--which begins on July 1 of any given year--may
take effect only at the beginning of the next award year,
or in other words, on July 1 of the next year. In light of
this requirement, the regulations resulting from negotiated
rulemaking could not be effective before July 1, 2019.
As noted previously, elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register, the Department is publishing an IFR
delaying the effective date of the final regulations until
July 1, 2018. The Department could implement the final
regulations on July 1, 2018, pursuant to the IFR, or,
7
through notice and comment rulemaking, we could delay the
effective date until July 1, 2019, or a future July 1. We
propose to further delay the effective date of the final
regulations, to continue to preserve the regulatory status
quo, until July 1, 2019. The Department would continue to
process borrower defense claims under the existing
regulations that will remain in effect during the delay so
that borrowers may continue to apply for the discharge of
all or a part of their loans.
Based on the above considerations, the Department is
proposing to delay until July 1, 2019, the effective date
of the following provisions of the final regulations in
title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR):
• § 668.14(b)(30), (31), and (32) Program
participation agreement.
• § 668.41(h) and (i) Reporting and disclosure of
information.
• § 668.71(c) Scope and special definitions.
• § 668.90(a)(3) Initial and final decisions.
• § 668.93(h), (i), and (j) Limitation.
• § 668.171 General.
• § 668.175(c), (d), (f), and (h) Alternative
standards and requirements.
• Part 668 subpart L, Appendix C.
8
• § 674.33(g)(3) and (g)(8) Repayment.
• § 682.202(b)(1) Permissible charges by lenders to
borrowers.
• § 682.211(i)(7) Forbearance.
• § 682.402(d)(3), (d)(6)(ii)(B)(1) and (2),
(d)(6)(ii)(F) introductory text, (d)(6)(ii)(F)(5),
(d)(6)(ii)(G), (d)(6)(ii)(H) through (K), (d)(7)(ii) and
(iii), (d)(8), and (e)(6)(iii) Death, disability, closed
school, false certification, unpaid refunds, and bankruptcy
payments.
• § 682.405(b)(4)(ii) Loan rehabilitation
agreement.
• § 682.410(b)(4) and (b)(6)(viii) Fiscal,
administrative, and enforcement requirements.
• § 685.200(f)(3)(v) and (f)(4)(iii) Borrower
eligibility.
• § 685.205(b)(6) Forbearance.
• § 685.206(c) Borrower responsibilities and
defenses.
• § 685.212(k) Discharge of a loan obligation.
• § 685.214(c)(2) and (f)(4) through (7) Closed
school discharge.
9
• § 685.215(a)(1), (c)(1) through (c)(8), and (d)
Discharge for false certification of student eligibility or
unauthorized payment.
• § 685.222 Borrower defenses.
• Part 685 subpart B, Appendix A Examples of
borrower relief.
• § 685.300(b)(11), (b)(12), and (d) through (i)
Agreements between an eligible school and the Secretary for
participation in the Direct Loan Program.
• § 685.308(a) Remedial actions.
As noted in the IFR, the Department interprets all
references to “July 1, 2017” in the text of the above-
referenced regulations to mean the effective date of those
regulations. The regulatory text included references to
the specific July 1, 2017, date in part to provide clarity
to readers in the future as to when the regulations had
taken effect. Because the regulations did not take effect
on July 1, 2017, we would, in connection with this proposed
additional delay of effective date, read those regulations
as referring to the new effective date established by this
further delay, i.e., July 1, 2019.
This proposed delay of the final regulations will not
delay the effective dates of the following regulatory
provisions published in 81 FR 75926 which: (1) expand the
10
types of documentation that may be used for the granting of
a discharge based on the death of the borrower; (2) amend
the regulations governing the consolidation of Nursing
Student Loans and Nurse Faculty Loans so that they align
with the statutory requirements of section 428C(a)(4)(E) of
the HEA; (3) amend the regulations governing Direct
Consolidation Loans to allow a borrower to obtain a Direct
Consolidation Loan regardless of whether the borrower is
also seeking to consolidate a Direct Loan Program or FFEL
Program loan, if the borrower has a loan type identified in
34 CFR 685.220(b); (4) address severability; and (5) make
technical corrections. As established in 81 FR 75926, 34
CFR 682.211(i)(7) and 682.410(b)(6)(viii) would remain
designated for early implementation, at the discretion of
each lender or guaranty agency.
Waiver of Negotiated Rulemaking: Under section 492 of the
HEA (20 U.S.C. 1098a), all regulations proposed by the
Department for programs authorized under title IV of the
HEA are subject to negotiated rulemaking requirements.
However, section 492(b)(2) of the HEA provides that
negotiated rulemaking may be waived for good cause when
doing so would be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest.” Section 492(b)(2) of the HEA also
requires the Secretary to publish the basis for waiving
11
negotiations in the Federal Register at the same time as
the proposed regulations in question are first published.
For the reasons stated above, it would not be
practicable, before the July 1, 2018 effective date
specified in the IFR, to engage in negotiated rulemaking
and publish final regulations. There is, therefore, good
cause to waive negotiated rulemaking pertaining to this
delay.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined
whether this regulatory action is “significant” and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive
Order and subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action
likely to result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal
governments or communities in a material way (also referred
to as an “economically significant” rule);
12
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or planned by another
agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of
entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the
rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of
legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the
principles stated in the Executive order.
The Department estimates the quantified annualized
economic and net budget impacts of the delay of the
effective date to be -$26.9 million in reduced costs to
institutions and the Federal government. These reduced
costs result from the delay of the borrower defense
provisions of the final regulations as they would apply to
the 2017 to 2019 loan cohorts, as well as from the delayed
paperwork burden on institutions, and the delayed execution
of the closed school automatic discharge. This proposed
regulatory action is a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this proposed rule under
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly
reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions
13
governing regulatory review established in Executive Order
12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned
determination that their benefits justify their costs
(recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to
quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden
on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives
and taking into account--among other things and to the
extent practicable--the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, select those approaches that maximize net
benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance
objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of
compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to
direct regulation, including economic incentives--such as
user fees or marketable permits--to encourage the desired
behavior, or provide information that enables the public to
make choices.
14
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use
the best available techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as accurately as
possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may
include “identifying changing future compliance costs that
might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.”
We are issuing this proposed rule only on a reasoned
determination that its benefits justify its costs. Based
on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that
this proposed rule is consistent with the principles in
Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action
does not unduly interfere with State, local, or Tribal
governments in the exercise of their governmental
functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the
Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits,
both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory
action.
The quantified economic effects and net budget impact
associated with the delayed effective date are not expected
to be economically significant.
15
Effects of One-Year Delay:
As indicated in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)
published with the final regulations on November 1, 2016,
the final regulations were economically significant with a
total estimated net budget impact of $16.6 billion over the
2017-2026 loan cohorts in the primary estimate scenario,
including a cost of $381 million for cohorts 2014-2016
attributable to the provisions for a three-year automatic
closed school discharge. As the net budget impact is based
on the net present value of the cash flows of the relevant
cohorts over 40 years, delaying the final regulations for
an additional year will have limited effect, as discussed
below. This analysis is limited to the effect of delaying
the effective date of the final regulations an additional
year from July 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019, and does not
account for any potential changes in the final regulations.
Even with the further delayed effective date,
borrowers will still be able to submit claims. The
provisions of the final regulations pertaining to the
process for review and determination of claims were not
limited to specific cohorts designated by the effective
date so the delay will not result in specific cohorts of
borrowers being excluded from the process reflected in the
final regulations, when implemented. Once in effect, the
16
protection generated by the financial protection provisions
will be available to be applied to claims from loans
originated earlier, including the period from July 1, 2018
to June 30, 2019. Loans made before July 1, 2017, were
always subject to the State-based standard and borrowers’
ability to bring claims under that standard is unchanged by
the delay. For claims filed after the effective date of
the regulations, for loans made on or after July 1, 2019,
the Federal standard established in the final regulations
would apply. As discussed previously, the Department
interprets all references to “July 1, 2017” in the text of
the final regulations to mean the effective date of the
final regulations. As a result, the further delay in the
effective date means that loans made between July 1, 2018
and June 30, 2019, will be subject to the current State-
based standard. As we noted in the final regulations, the
Federal standard was designed to address much of the
conduct already covered by the State-based standard, so the
vast majority of claims associated with loans made between
July 1, 2017, and the delayed effective date could be made
under the current, State-based standard as well.
In addition to borrowers, institutions are also
affected by the delayed effective date. As indicated in
the RIA for the final regulations, institutions bear the
17
major costs of compliance, paperwork burden, and providing
financial protection. The financial protection provisions
of the final regulations depend on the effective date, so
institutions will not incur these costs until the final
regulations are in effect. In terms of cost savings for
institutions, the estimated annual paperwork burden was
approximately $9.4 million in the initial year of the final
regulations. In the revised scenario developed to estimate
the effect of the additional one-year delay in the
effective date, transfers from institutions to students,
via the Federal government, would be reduced by
approximately $9.3 million for the 2017 and 2018 loan
cohorts. The costs of providing financial protection were
not quantified in the RIA for the final regulations, and
the Department has no additional data to estimate costs
institutions may avoid from the delayed effective date of
the financial protection provisions.
Net Budget Impact:
In order to estimate the net budget impact of the
additional one-year delay in the effective date to July 1,
2019, the Department developed a scenario that revised the
primary estimate assumptions from the final regulations for
the affected 2017 to 2019 loan cohorts, as was done for the
one-year delay described in the IFR. As before, the
18
Department applies an assumed level of school misconduct,
borrower claims success, and recoveries from institutions
(respectively labeled as Conduct Percent, Borrower Percent,
and Recovery Percent in Table 1) to the President’s Budget
2018 (PB2018) loan volume estimates to generate the
estimated net borrower defense claims for each cohort, loan
type, and sector. The assumptions for the primary scenario
from the 2016 final regulation were the basis for the
President’s Budget 2018 (PB2018) baseline that assumed the
final regulations would go into effect on July 1, 2017.
The scenario developed for this NPRM is designed to capture
the incremental change from the one-year delay in the IFR
associated with the further one-year delay in the effective
date to July 1, 2019. Compared to the scenario developed
for the IFR, recoveries are reduced by an additional two
percent for the 2017 and 2018 cohorts, all of the 2018
cohort is subject to the State-based standard, and the
affected portion of the 2019 cohort is subject to the
current, State-based standard and reduced recoveries at the
five percent level used for the one-year delay in the IFR.
Table 1 presents assumptions for the primary estimate from
the final regulations and the revised estimate for the
further one-year delay, from July 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019,
in the effective date. In this scenario, the conduct
19
percent is 90 percent of the primary scenario from the
final regulations and the borrower percent is the same.
The financial protection provided was always expected to
increase over time, so the delayed effective date in the
near term is not expected to significantly affect the
amount of recoveries over the life of any particular loan
cohort, limiting any net budget impact from the delay. To
estimate the potential reduction in recoveries related to
the proposed delayed effective date, we reduced recoveries
for the affected portion of the 2017 and 2018 cohorts by
seven percent for the private not-for-profit and
proprietary sectors and by five percent for the 2019
cohort. As in the final regulations and the IFR,
recoveries from public institutions were held constant at
75 percent across scenarios.
Table 1: Revised Assumptions for One-Year Delay from July
1, 2018 to July 1, 2019
Cohort 2017 2018 2019
Pub/
Priv
NFP
Prop Pub/
Priv
NFP
Prop Pub/
Priv
NFP
Prop
Conduct Percent:
Final Primary
3.0
20
2.4
16
2.0
13.6
20
Delay to 2019 2.7 18 2.16 14.4 1.8 12.24
Borrower
Percent:
Final Primary
Delay to 2019
35
35
45
45
36.8
36.8
47.3
47.3
36.8
36.8
47.3
47.3
Recovery
Percent:
Final Primary
Delay to 2019
Pub:
75
75
Priv/P
rop:
23.8
22.134
Public
:
75
75
Priv/Pr
op:
23.8
22.134
Pub:
75
75
Priv/Pr
op:
23.8
24.871
The net budget impact associated with these effects of
the additional one-year delay in the effective date on the
borrower defense provisions only is approximately -$46.1
million from the 2017 to 2019 loan cohorts.
As the amount and composition of borrower defense
claims and estimated recoveries over the lifetime of the
relevant loan cohorts are not expected to change greatly
due to the delayed effective date, the Department does not
estimate an economically significant net budget impact from
the delay itself, with a potential net budget impact
related to borrower defense claims of -$46.1 million in
reduced costs for the affected cohorts. This represents
the incremental change associated with the additional one-
21
year delay from July 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019. If compared
to the PB2018 baseline, the savings would be approximately
-$78.8 million.
The closed school automatic discharge provisions were
the other significant source of estimated net budget impact
in the final regulations. Under credit reform scoring, the
modification to older cohorts for the automatic discharge
provision estimated to cost $364 million was expected to
occur in fiscal year (FY) 2017 in the President’s Budget
for FY 2018 (PB2018). As a result of the delay in the
effective date, the Department will not execute the
modification in FY 2017.
As indicated in the IFR, the Department does expect to
incur the costs associated with the three-year automatic
discharge after the delayed effective date, but moving the
execution of the modification beyond FY 2017 will require a
new cost analysis with economic assumptions from the fiscal
year of the execution. This will result in a change of
cost, but at this point it is not possible to know the
discount rates in future fiscal years, so the cost of the
modification will be determined in the year that it is
executed. While the actual cost of the future modification
cannot be determined at this time, the Department did
approximate the effect of the delay by shifting the timing
22
of the relevant discharges back by a year and recalculating
a modification using the discount rates and economic
assumptions used for the calculation of the PB2018
modification. When calculated in this manner, the delay in
the modification to July 2018 described in the IFR resulted
in estimated savings of less than $10 million. Using the
same approach, the further delay to July 2019 is expected
to save approximately $15 million above the savings from
the initial one-year delay.
As the delay does not change the substance of the
automatic discharge, we would expect the amount and
composition of loans affected by the automatic discharge
not to change significantly. The closed school three-year
automatic discharge provisions were applicable to loans
made on or after November 1, 2013, and were not linked to
the effective date of the final regulations. Therefore,
delaying the effective date of those provisions will not
change the set of loans eligible for this automatic
discharge. Additionally, borrowers would have the ability
to apply for a closed school discharge before July 1, 2019,
if they did not want to wait for the automatic discharge to
be implemented. For future cohorts, the delay is not
significant as the three-year period will fall beyond the
delayed effective date. Any significant change to the
23
estimated net budget impact associated with the closed
school automatic discharge depends on any substantive
changes made to the provisions as a result of the upcoming
rulemaking and changes to economic assumptions when the
modification is executed.
Consistent with Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339,
February 3, 2017), we have estimated that this proposed
rule will result in cost savings. Therefore, this proposed
rule would be considered an Executive Order 13771
deregulatory action.
Accounting Statement:
In evaluating whether a regulation is economically
significant, a key consideration is whether the annual
effect in any given year is over $100 million. To evaluate
this, the Department looked at the difference in the
undiscounted cashflows related to the death, disability,
and bankruptcy (DDB) claims in which borrower defense
claims are included for the one-year delay established in
the IFR and the further one-year delay scenario described
under Net Budget Impacts. The difference from subtracting
the further delay scenario from the IFR one-year delay
scenario for the 2017 to 2019 cohorts is summarized in
Table 2.
24
Table 2: Difference in Undiscounted Net Cashflows for the
2017 to 2019 Loan Cohorts from the Further One-Year Delay
in 2016 Borrower Defense Rule to July 1, 2019
FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Change in DDB Cashflow
159
7,489
496,637 637,361 538,468
FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026
Change in DDB Cashflow
6,004,802
9,525,520 4,668,143 2,156,009 3,003,657
Table 3 shows the effects when those differences in the DDB
cashflows are discounted at 7 and 3 percent and annualized.
Category Benefits
Institutions may not
incur compliance costs
or costs of obtaining
financial protection
until the rule is in
effect.
Not Quantified
Category Costs
7% 3%
Continued use of State
-law based standard.
Delay in providing
consumer information
about institution’s
performance and
practices.
Potential decreased
awareness and usage of
closed school and false
Not Quantified
25
certification
discharges.
Savings associated with
delay in compliance
with paperwork
requirements.
-9.5 -9.51
Category Transfers
7% 3%
Reduction in transfers
from the Federal
Government to affected
borrowers in the 2017
to 2019 cohorts that
would have been
partially borne by
affected institutions
via reimbursements.
-3.5 -3.8
Reduced reimbursements
from affected
institutions to
affected students, via
the Federal government
as loan cohorts 2017 to
2019 are subject to the
existing borrower
defense regulation.
-1.2 -1.3
Delay in closed school
automatic discharge
implementation from
2018 to 2019
-14.8 -14.8
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
As indicated in the Paperwork Reduction Act section
published in the final regulations, the assessed estimated
26
burden was 253,136 hours, affecting both institutions and
individuals, with an estimated annual cost of $9,458,484.
The table below identifies the regulatory sections, OMB
Control Numbers, estimated burden hours, and estimated
costs of the final regulations.
Regulatory
Section
OMB
Control
Number
Burden Hours Estimated Cost
$36.55/hour
Institution
$16.30/hour
Individual
668.14 1845-0022 1,953 71,382
668.41 1845-0004 5,346 195,396
668.171 1845-0022 3,028 110,673
668.175 1845-0022 60,560 2,213,468
682.211 1845-0020 5,784 211,405
682.402 1845-0020 1,838 67,179
685.222 1845-0142 249
(Individuals)
4,059
685.222 1845-0142 800
(Institutions)
29,240
685.300 1845-0143 179,362 6,555,681
TOTAL 258,920 9,458,484
Cost savings due to
delayed effective date
excluding 682.211
early implementation
allowed
253,136 9,247,079
Burden remaining 5,784 211,405
This notice of proposed rulemaking delays the effective
date of the implementation of all of the cited regulations
and would result in a cost savings of the total amount of
$9,458,484. However, § 682.211(i)(7) of the final
regulations, regarding mandatory forbearance based on a
27
borrower defense claim, with an estimated 5,784 hours and
$211,405 cost, as would continue to be designated for early
implementation. Lenders may have elected early
implementation and, therefore, those specific costs and
hours remain applicable and have been subtracted from the
overall estimated cost saving. Based on the delayed
effective date of July 1, 2019, the revised estimated
annual cost savings to institutions and individuals is
$9,247,079 ($9,458,484 – $211,405) with an estimated burden
hours savings of 253,136 (258,920 – 5,784).
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities may
obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g.,
braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on
request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to this Document: The official version
of this document is the document published in the Federal
Register. Free internet access to the official edition of
the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is
available via the Federal Digital System at:
www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site, you can view this
document, as well as all other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in text or PDF. To use
28
PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at the site.
You may also access documents of the Department
published in the Federal Register by using the article
search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically,
through the advanced search feature at this site, you can
limit your search to documents published by the Department.
List of Subjects
34 CFR Part 668
Administrative practice and procedure, Colleges and
universities, Consumer protection, Grant programs—
education, Loan programs—education, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Selective Service System,
Student aid, Vocational education.
34 CFR Part 674
Loan programs—education, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Student aid.
29
34 CFR Parts 682 and 685
Administrative practice and procedure, Colleges and
universities, Loan programs—education, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Student aid, Vocational
education.
Dated: October 16, 2017
____________________________
Betsy DeVos,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2017-22850 Filed: 10/20/2017 4:15 pm; Publication Date: 10/24/2017]